Aaron Swartz, the 26-year-old Internet genius, was eulogized on Tuesday as a person who wanted to make the world better but was hounded into killing himself by harsh government policies.

Swartz was “killed by the government,” his father, Robert Swartz, said at the service at Central Avenue Synagogue in Highland Park, Ill., according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “He was killed by the government, and MIT betrayed all of its basic principles,” he said.

Facing the possibility of a long prison sentence if convicted of charges that he illegally downloaded millions of academic journal articles, Swartz hanged himself in his New York apartment Friday. The death of one of the founders of news and entertainment website Reddit and a longtime activist for an open Internet has ignited outrage among many in the electronic community who view him as a martyr to government prosecution.

“Today is the funeral of Aaron Swartz, who contributed so much to the launch of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and our technology during our first 20 months,” the group said in an email to reporters. “His suicide followed an over-zealous prosecution for a crime with no victims -- by a Justice Department that has yet to prosecute the Wall Street bankers who destroyed our economy and harmed millions of lives. Our hearts go out to Aaron’s family and partner.”

Maybe dad should've taught his kids the difference between right and wrong. Then maybe he wouldn't have been caught doing wrong._________________You're jumping to conclusions, so I can't keep up with you. Go on without me, I'll just slow you down.

Maybe dad should've taught his kids the difference between right and wrong. Then maybe he wouldn't have been caught doing wrong.

The 'victim' refused to press charges. The dept. of justice just went ahead with a grand jury of its own bat. The dept. has been going off the rails with overreaching/insane prosecutions for many many years now. Someone needs to put a collar on that beast._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

I know in some cases the victim doesn't have to press charges. MIT was also involved. Regardless, if he hadn't committed the crime in the first place, he'd still be alive. I'm amazed at what seems like a generational shift in thinking crime is not crime. Breaking the law in protest is one thing, but it is still breaking the law._________________You're jumping to conclusions, so I can't keep up with you. Go on without me, I'll just slow you down.

Maybe dad should've taught his kids the difference between right and wrong. Then maybe he wouldn't have been caught doing wrong.

The 'victim' refused to press charges. The dept. of justice just went ahead with a grand jury of its own bat. The dept. has been going off the rails with overreaching/insane prosecutions for many many years now. Someone needs to put a collar on that beast.

They work for Obama. Don't kid yourself. They're doing what he wants them to do, in terms of areas of focus, priorities, policy, etc. He whored out for content creators and IP holders, and he's got to pay the piper. That's why his DoJ has been on an Internet piracy witch-hunt since day 1. Plus it gives them an excuse to exert more authority over the Internets, the better to control you with.

I am kinda annoyed by all of the blame that is being placed on the prosecutor. The prosecutor should not have pushed for such a heavy sentence, but the fact that he did doesn't make him responsible for Aaron's death. Aaron was killed by his own depression, not by anyone else.

Pushing for a heavy sentence, especially if credibly achievable, can lead to a plea bargain without a lengthy expensive trial. Sounds to me like the prosecutor was doing his job. If it wasn't credibly achievable, then that's where the bargaining begins. If he refused to accept any bargain, well, then he risks maximum sentence._________________You're jumping to conclusions, so I can't keep up with you. Go on without me, I'll just slow you down.

Pushing for a heavy sentence, especially if credibly achievable, can lead to a plea bargain without a lengthy expensive trial. Sounds to me like the prosecutor was doing his job. If it wasn't credibly achievable, then that's where the bargaining begins. If he refused to accept any bargain, well, then he risks maximum sentence.

Just because the prosecutor is doing his job, doesn't mean that he isn't morally in the wrong.

And just because he's doing his job doesn't mean he is morally wrong. The guy very much seems guilty. I don't see the morality problem._________________You're jumping to conclusions, so I can't keep up with you. Go on without me, I'll just slow you down.

Just be prepared to accept the punishment. There is no way to rationalize what he did as acceptable, or "civil disobedience" of an unjust law. Deciding what to charge him with is a separate issue._________________You're jumping to conclusions, so I can't keep up with you. Go on without me, I'll just slow you down.

There is no way to rationalize what he did as acceptable, or "civil disobedience" of an unjust law.

Why not? This seems like a pretty good example of civil disobedience.

Really? Civil disobedience pretty much requires one to suffer the consequences of the unjust law. MLK jr sat in jail for his civil disobedience, so did Gandhi. What Deddit did was to steal data and then try to skip past the whole "consequences" part. By doing that, it makes a mockery of real civil disobedience.

I still maintain that the DoJ is was out of line... but Deddit isn't a martyr._________________People Of Love

Basically, if you violate the terms of use of a website, then the feds will charge you with felony hacking, slap you with a $1 million fine, and thow you in prison for decades. But hey, don't do the crime if you can't pay the time, right? A simple slogan for the simple minded._________________Your argument is invalid.

Basically, if you violate the terms of use of a website, then the feds will charge you with felony hacking, slap you with a $1 million fine, and thow you in prison for decades. But hey, don't do the crime if you can't pay the time, right? A simple slogan for the simple minded.

Maybe this will serve as a lesson to the young idiots who supported Obama. Statism is never the answer._________________People Of Love

I am kinda annoyed by all of the blame that is being placed on the prosecutor. The prosecutor should not have pushed for such a heavy sentence, but the fact that he did doesn't make him responsible for Aaron's death. Aaron was killed by his own depression, not by anyone else.

I don't know about that, R. There is a sense in which you are right, of course. But it is clearly possible to torment someone to the point that death becomes preferable. If you do that, aren't you substantially responsible? Consider an analogy. Suppose a homosexual teen is relentlessly and mercilessly bullied to the point that he kills himself to escape the torment. Are you annoyed by people blaming the bully? Do you blame "depression" instead? No, it is correct to blame the bully, and here it is correct to blame sadistic, vicious government officials._________________Your argument is invalid.

I am kinda annoyed by all of the blame that is being placed on the prosecutor. The prosecutor should not have pushed for such a heavy sentence, but the fact that he did doesn't make him responsible for Aaron's death. Aaron was killed by his own depression, not by anyone else.

I don't know about that, R. There is a sense in which you are right, of course. But it is clearly possible to torment someone to the point that death becomes preferable. If you do that, aren't you substantially responsible? Consider an analogy. Suppose a homosexual teen is relentlessly and mercilessly bullied to the point that he kills himself to escape the torment. Are you annoyed by people blaming the bully? Do you blame "depression" instead? No, it is correct to blame the bully, and here it is correct to blame sadistic, vicious government officials.

It is clearly possible to torment someone to the point that death becomes preferable. But where is the evidence that it happened here? Aaron committed a crime, and as a smart guy, he must have been aware that prosecution was a possibility. The prosecutor prosecuted him to the full extent of the law. What did he do that qualifies as "sadistic" or "vicious"?

There is no way to rationalize what he did as acceptable, or "civil disobedience" of an unjust law.

Why not? This seems like a pretty good example of civil disobedience.

Really? Civil disobedience pretty much requires one to suffer the consequences of the unjust law. MLK jr sat in jail for his civil disobedience, so did Gandhi. What Deddit did was to steal data and then try to skip past the whole "consequences" part. By doing that, it makes a mockery of real civil disobedience.

I agree that civil disobedience requires one to suffer the consequences. The dude is dead. Isn't that consequence enough?

I agree that civil disobedience requires one to suffer the consequences. The dude is dead. Isn't that consequence enough?

By killing himself, he has nullified the legal case against him. It might be construed as an extreme form of civil disobedience, but because he chose to cop out instead of standing up to the consequences of his actions, cowardice is the more likely public judgment.

It is clearly possible to torment someone to the point that death becomes preferable. But where is the evidence that it happened here? Aaron committed a crime, and as a smart guy, he must have been aware that prosecution was a possibility. The prosecutor prosecuted him to the full extent of the law. What did he do that qualifies as "sadistic" or "vicious"?

Well there was that time he threatened Swartz with $1 million in fines and 35 years in prison for downloading too many journal articles._________________Your argument is invalid.

I think morality and ethics are like physics in the sense that everybody involved can be following the moral path and yet cause collisions even between two morally operating entities even to the point of destroying one or both of them.

-The Prosecutor has a moral obligation to uphold the laws, even the ones that he disagrees with, as part of his role in a democratic society. If he did not, then why would we even need laws in the first place, if the prosecutor is just going to enforce whatever he wants?

-Mr Schwarz needed to make a point about information freedom which is poorly implemented in US law. Unfortunately, the weight of the response against him was too much for him to bear. Maybe he thought he could withstand it but in the end did not have the fortitude to go through with it. It is sad. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family (if they want them).

I think he was raising an excellent point and I hope we as a society see what he was trying to communicate and maybe this will all come out for the better thanks to him. Maybe we can call the reform 'Schwarz's Law'._________________"History began on July 4,1776. Everything before that was a mistake." -Ron Swanson